Florida Supreme Court Takes Property Owners to the Cleaners: The Impact of Aramark v. Easton

The Florida Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Easton, which could have big effects on property owners in Florida. The court said that a landowner can be held responsible for pollution on their property, even if they didn’t cause it. The decision also limits the defenses the landowner can use in these cases. This article looks at how this decision will affect property owners in Florida and how it relates to the state’s rules for cleaning up contaminated sites. Aramark bought a property with contamination, and the neighbor, Easton, sued for damages. The trial court said Easton didn’t prove Aramark caused the contamination, but the appeals court said a law made Aramark liable anyway. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, saying the law makes Aramark responsible for the contamination, even if they didn’t cause it. In simple language, the court found that a certain law in Florida creates a new way for people to sue for damages from pollution, even if they didn’t cause the pollution themselves. This is different from the usual rules about suing for pollution damage. The law also limits the defenses that the person being sued can use. Other parts of the law show that the lawmakers meant to create a new way to sue, not just change the old rules. The court decided that a current property owner can sue if their property is contaminated, even if they didn’t cause the contamination. The court said that the owner should have done research before buying the property and could have gotten insurance to protect against pollution. The case was sent back to the lower court to decide if the law applies in this situation. Before this case, different courts had different opinions on this issue. Several individuals who worked at a glass manufacturing plant sued the company, claiming they were exposed to toxic substances that caused health problems. The court ruled in their favor, saying that the company could be held responsible for releasing hazardous materials that caused harm to people. Another case involved a gas station owner suing the previous owner for property damage from petroleum contamination. The court dismissed the claim, saying the law didn’t create a new cause of action for this type of damage. However, a later case ruled in favor of a property owner seeking compensation for contamination damage, finding that the law did permit such claims. In a final ruling, the Florida Supreme Court approved the earlier decisions and disagreed with the dismissal in the second case. The Aramark decision affects the liabilities in the DEP’s Drycleaning Facility Restoration Program by allowing people to sue for damages from pollution without having to prove who caused the pollution. This is different from the usual laws where you have to prove who caused the pollution. The Aramark decision does not change the exceptions to liabilities set by the DEP’s Drycleaning Facility Restoration Program. The court didn’t decide if any exceptions would apply in this case, and that will be determined by the circuit court. The same goes for the DEP’s Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program, as the decision only recognizes a private cause of action under §376.313(3). This means a person can bring a lawsuit for damages from pollution without proving who caused it. This applies to both drycleaning facilities and petroleum discharges. The Aramark decision doesn’t change the rules for liabilities and exceptions in the DEP’s programs for cleaning up pollution from petroleum, drycleaning facilities, or brownfield sites. The decision only applies to certain types of pollution covered by specific laws. So, the rules for those programs are not affected. The Aramark decision means that landowners can be held responsible for pollution on their property, even if they didn’t cause it. This could lead to more lawsuits from neighbors who claim their property was damaged. Owners of polluted sites may have limited options to defend themselves, and those who buy polluted land need to be extra careful. In short, the message is “buyer beware” when it comes to buying or owning polluted land. Ralph A. DeMeo, Carl Eldred, and Lisa J. Feuerstein are lawyers who work for a law firm called Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. They are experts in environmental and land use law. They have degrees from different universities and are members of The Florida Bar. They work to uphold the principles of duty and service to the public and to improve the administration of justice.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/florida-supreme-court-takes-property-owners-to-the-cleaners-the-impact-of-aramark-v-easton/